Should Students Be Taught the Truth about Evolution?

Jonathan Wells

To the Editor:

In his review of my recent book, Icons of Evolution, in the February
issue of The World & I, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry
Martin concludes that although the book is full of sound and fury, it doesn't
signify much. But Professor Martin has ignored or distorted my main points.

Icons of Evolution relies on published scientific reports to show
that biology textbooks systematically misrepresent the evidence for Darwinian
evolution, substituting "icons" for facts. It also points out that
many biology textbooks use Darwinism to promote an antireligious philosophy
and argues that this has no legitimate place in publicly funded science education.

Some dogmatic Darwinists have attacked me personally for bringing these textbook
misrepresentations to public attention--accusing me of being a dishonest scholar
or a religious fundamentalist. I am happy to say that Martin does not descend
to this level; he even graciously acknowledges that I have gotten my biological
facts straight.

But Martin's criticisms do follow a pattern typical of many other Darwinists.
First, he defends the superficial outlines of the textbook icons but ignores
their profound distortions of the truth. Second, although my book does not
criticize evolution from a theological perspective, Martin relies on theological
arguments to defend it. Third, he falsely accuses me of wanting to "take
the teaching of evolution out of schools" and to "suppress philosophical
viewpoints" that disagree with my own.

On the first point: Most biology textbooks ignore the Cambrian explosion,
in which the fossil record shows the major types of animals (technically called
phyla) appearing together, fully formed, rather than diverging gradually from
a common ancestor as Darwin's theory requires. Martin changes the topic to
extinction, then glosses over the conflict between evolutionary theory (in
which major differences are supposed to appear after minor ones) and the fossil
evidence (which shows the opposite).

Martin briefly notes that I "attack ... the embryological support for
evolution." But he completely ignores the substance of my chapter on
embryology. Charles Darwin believed that the "strongest single class
of facts" supporting his theory was the supposed similarity of vertebrate
embryos in their earliest stages, which (he thought) demonstrated their descent
from a common ancestor. In making his claim, Darwin relied on drawings made
by his German contemporary, Ernst Haeckel. But Haeckel faked his drawings
and was accused of fraud by his colleagues.

Yet Haeckel's drawings (or some form of them) are still used in most modern
biology textbooks as evidence for evolution. "We do, I think, have the
right," Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 2000, "to be both astonished
and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence
of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks."

Then there's the story of peppered moths. Most current biology textbooks
carry photos of these moths on tree trunks, claiming that experiments performed
in the 1950s showed that natural selection (stemming from camouflage differences
and predatory birds) made dark- colored moths more common during the Industrial
Revolution. But Martin omits the fact that this textbook story is now very
much in doubt, because biologists discovered in the 1980s that peppered moths
don't normally rest on tree trunks. All the textbook photos have been staged-
-some by gluing or pinning dead moths in place.

On the second point: Instead of dealing seriously with these and other misrepresentations,
Martin turns repeatedly to theological arguments to justify his belief in
evolution. For example, he writes: "Either there is a Creator who operates
according to the old motto 'if at first you don't succeed, try again' or there
is some mechanism, like evolution, to replace lost diversity." Again:
"Our alternatives seem to consist of Plato, Aristotle, and the mind of
God. As the latter is unknowable, it might encompass anything."

This mode of reasoning was also used by Darwin. The Origin of Species
is full of arguments of the following form: God wouldn't have done it that
way, so it must have been caused by evolution. But this is philosophy, not
science.

Now, philosophy is fascinating. I think students should study it. But I
do not think it should be propped up with distorted evidence and then presented
as though it were science.

On the third point: Martin completely misconstrues my position when he accuses
me of "crusading to take the teaching of evolution out of schools."
I do not advocate the removal of evolution from biology classes. But I insist
that it be taught truthfully. Students deserve to know about the faked illustrations
in their textbooks. They deserve to be given the real evidence, and they are
entitled to make their own judgments about it. Let's educate them, not indoctrinate
them.

Martin also misconstrues my position when he claims that I am attempting
"to suppress philosophical viewpoints" that disagree with my own.
I am not advocating anything of the sort. I affirm the right of all people
to hold and defend whatever philosophy they choose. But I object when any
particular philosophy becomes a government-supported orthodoxy.

Ironically, if anyone is suppressing contrary viewpoints in the present
situation, it is the Darwinists. Dogmatic defenders of Darwinian evolution
rely on distorted evidence and theological arguments to promote an antireligious
philosophy, yet they claim that theirs is the only viewpoint that can legitimately
be taught--at taxpayer expense--in science classrooms. Criticism of Darwinian
orthodoxy is discouraged or even prohibited in the public schools. This sure
looks like suppression to me. If we want to resolve the growing controversy
over Darwinism, we must acknowledge the difference between materialistic philosophy
and empirical science and rid biology textbooks of their falsehoods. Let's
teach students the truth about evolution.